A basic question which occurred to me in the wake of Dembki's 'Herman Munster' post:

Has Dembski ever made an attempt at humor that was actually funny?

I mean, looking back over the last year or two, what comes to mind is stuff like the Herman Munster 'joke' (which reminds me uncomfortably of stuff the wingnuts said about Kerry 3 years ago), his fart video, that stoopid 'brights' parody... Either guffawing at people's appearance, potty humor, stuff you'd expect of a ten-year-old boy with a very mediocre intellect. Maybe there are attempts at humor he's made that *were* funny, but I've just forgotten them. Anyone remember them?

I hesitate to say that Dembski is 'humorless' per se, since he clearly tries to make jokes, but his sense of humor seems rather stunted. Denyse O'Leary strikes me as a much more severe example of the same syndrome, who may actually qualify as completely humorless.

Now, the larger question: is this a syndrome? Is this inevitable? Is there something about the religious dogmatism and extremely narrow thinking necessary to being a Creationist that destroys one's ability to actually be deliberately funny and witty to anyone without an identical set of ideas? Maybe so. Try and imagine Pat Robertson or some Iranian mullah actually making a witty remark. Hard to see, no?

It's certainly not the case that religious people can't be funny: Jews practically invented modern American humor, and I've met Buddhist monks who had extremely robust senses of humor, and who told hilarious stories. But there seems to be something about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam that totally kills any trace of laugh-laugh, even if the person wants to be funny.

Observations?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Now, the larger question: is this a syndrome? Is this inevitable? Is there something about the religious dogmatism and extremely narrow thinking necessary to being a Creationist that destroys one's ability to actually be deliberately funny and witty to anyone without an identical set of ideas? Maybe so. Try and imagine Pat Robertson or some Iranian mullah actually making a witty remark. Hard to see, no?

It's certainly not the case that religious people can't be funny: Jews practically invented modern American humor, and I've met Buddhist monks who had extremely robust senses of humor, and who told hilarious stories. But there seems to be something about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam that totally kills any trace of laugh-laugh, even if the person wants to be funny.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering

My sides are just splitting.

Yeah. I can see her headlining at The Comedy Club now.

She's about as funny as the Spanish Inquisition.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Now, the larger question: is this a syndrome? Is this inevitable? Is there something about the religious dogmatism and extremely narrow thinking necessary to being a Creationist that destroys one's ability to actually be deliberately funny and witty to anyone without an identical set of ideas? Maybe so. Try and imagine Pat Robertson or some Iranian mullah actually making a witty remark. Hard to see, no?

It's certainly not the case that religious people can't be funny: Jews practically invented modern American humor, and I've met Buddhist monks who had extremely robust senses of humor, and who told hilarious stories. But there seems to be something about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam that totally kills any trace of laugh-laugh, even if the person wants to be funny.

Ah, but remember, I clearly specified: deliberately funny. Can a creationist actually have an effective sense of humor?

(We all know they can be regular laff riots when they're trying to act all grown-up like.)

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder. Same trend: jokes you'd expect from a 10-YO boy.

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Ah, but remember, I clearly specified: deliberately funny. Can a creationist actually have an effective sense of humor?

(We all know they can be regular laff riots when they're trying to act all grown-up like.)

I thought I just made my case on that point.

no, they no longer, if they ever did, have the ability to be deliberately amusing in the sense that the vast majority of intelligent people would think such.

I'm serious; there is simply a different psychology there that seems to prohibit them from getting why Monty Python is funny when doing satire, and most certainly being able to use satire themselves in a humorous fashion.

I do even recall reading a study on this in my beginning psych course over 20 years ago.

you might try googling up something like "the psychology of humor" and see. I'll bet you'll run into something along the lines of what I am saying here.

Ah, but remember, I clearly specified: deliberately funny. Can a creationist actually have an effective sense of humor?

(We all know they can be regular laff riots when they're trying to act all grown-up like.)

Simple answer? NO

Longer answer... this subject / discussion, might be worth a PhD to some enterprising young psychologist, because I do not recall now, or at any time in the past ever hearing / seeing an actual "funny" creao / IDist. It's just not in them.

Yes, I think you are on to something! Maybe onsomething too, but that I guess is another story.

Damn! Very interesting! Evo's / Scientist = funny. IDers/Creos = NOT Funny. But the fun starts in fitting in all those stodgy, unfunny professors I have known. I know they weren't IDers or Creos, but they still weren't funny. Not as un-funny as a Dembski, or a DaveScot, but still, not funny, and not someone to have a drink with.

The Grant Request for this study might even merit it's own show on Comedy Central.

Hmmm.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

I'm 99% sure this has already been done, and by different people looking at different angles of it. I do recall reading snippets of this back in basic pych, so the studies on this must have been done quite a while back (probably 30 years or more)

I'm 99% sure this has already been done, and by different people looking at different angles of it. I do recall reading snippets of this back in basic pych, so the studies on this must have been done quite a while back (probably 30 years or more)

again, check the psych lit.

Ichthyic - Yeah. I'm turning up lots of papers:

1. Holy Shit - These People are Effing Dumb - University of Michigan Press.

2. No Humor - No brains - Dr. Michael Egnor

3. Jesus Christ - give it a rest already - The Wit and Wisdom of Kent Hovind - Anthology collected by his cellmates.

4. Hey Peter - I can see your house from up here!Christ On A Cross Collection - Vatican Library

I maintain that his belief that 'God diddit, then died' puts him in a category all his own.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I can just see Dembski getting all steamed up over the likes of Coyne, Judge Jones, all those Behe haters, and . . . well . . . just about anyone who doesn't bow to his Isaac Newton-like DR. DR. status. Hello!?! This guy just screams out "Napoleonic complex". Dembski thinks to himself:

Unlike Dembski, I use reliable sources to back up my points. According to Conservapedia, a napoleonic complex leads to "overly aggressive tendencies by some to compensate for being short or small. It is not endemic of all short people, and is only relevent for a small number for whom lack of physical stature may lead to difficulties in accepting themselves." Clearly conservapedia is describing Dembski. Here the only difference is that rather than lacking in height, Dembski lacks intellect. Otherwise the resemblance is obvious . . . his overt aggressiveness, when in the safety of his heavily moderated blog(not in public forums like court though) is clearly a sign of one who fels a need to compensate for a small something (intellect in this case). Furthermore, he clearly has difficulty accepting himself. Thus the need to be the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, and get so puffed up about his staus as DR. DR.

So while Coyne might be likened to Frankenstein, I think an appropriate image for Dembski would be either the Elmer Fudd imaged above, or the Napoleon Dynamite image here

Maybe humor uses some of the same brain circuitry that objective thinking uses, so when one suppresses that circuitry in order to prevent objective thinking, as a side effect it also suppresses the humor function as well?

IMHO good humor, particularly good satire, packs measures of both pleasure and aggression - about which these folks are notably conflicted. As does eroticism, in perhaps different measures. How erotic are these people?

Case closed.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I'm still trying to find one shred of humor in that "Brites" site that Dembski set up. The articles are supposed to be Onion-like but they are dense and humorless. I can't find evidence of satire, just lame attempts at mocking. The Onion makes me chuckle (i've got a subscription). The Brites site actually makes me gag a little bit supratentorially. I actually feel a little uncomfortable reading it because the person writing the articles hasn't a grasp on what comedy is, yet I think he/she feels they are writing the funniest thing in the world. Blech. Comedy is a talent. Thinking you have that talent when you don't is pathetic and annoying.

Hey, you could write a thesis on this and maybe be a Dr. Dr. yourself.

having gone through the process before, it gives one a sense for what has likely been done before, and while not impossible (see the kin selection in plants thread!), it seems highly improbable to me that someone wouldn't have done this before.

This tread puts me in mind of Lt. Hauk in Good Morning Vietnam: "Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny."

It does appear to be true that a certain mindset, particularly the Right Wing Authoritarian one, is incapable of very advanced or clever humour. I think in identifying the basis a good place to look is in the mind's capacity for abstraction. All good humour works because it relates to something familiar, and a good joke is a bizarre abstraction of a potentially real scenario.

There's no question that the mental gymnastics and games played with logic and rationality take their toll on capacity for abstract thinking. That this would thus affect one's sense of humour is probably a given.